DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed April 15, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 8 is directed towards a method, claim 16 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: generate a first graph network based on the first information item, the first graph network comprising a first plurality of nodes, wherein each node of the first plurality of nodes is associated with a property, the first graph network further comprising a first plurality of edges, wherein each edge of the first plurality of edges couples two nodes of the first graph network, and wherein each edge of the first plurality of edges represents a connection between the properties represented by the first plurality of nodes; generate a second graph network based on the second information item, wherein the second graph network comprises a second plurality of edges and a second plurality of nodes; determine a first node of the first graph network represents a property, wherein the first node is associated with a first node data object;
determine a second node of the second graph network represents the property, wherein the second node is associated with a second node data object; combine the first node data object with the second node data object to generate a combined node data object, wherein the combined node data object comprises a portion of a combined graph network formed from a combination of the first graph network and the second graph network. These limitations, but for a computer are capable of being performed in the human mind including the use of pen and paper, and are thus, grouped under the abstract idea of Mental Processes in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to extra-solution activity and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: receive a first information item; receive a second information item; and output the combined graph network. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because such activities are merely pre data gathering and post data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Whereas, the limitations, a computer-readable memory that store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to at least, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites extra-solution activities and merely applies the abstract idea by a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the receive a first information item, receive a second information item, and output the combined graph network, are used only for insignificant extra-solution activity because such activity amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting in implementing the aforementioned abstract concept. Furthermore, the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, the limitations generically, referring to a computer-readable memory that store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors, also do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-7, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claim 13 uses a machine learning model to generate a graph embedding, which is basically using a computer algorithm to create output information. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-7 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim 1 is not similar to any of the three groupings of abstract ideas, and do not fall within the "mental process" grouping. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract ideas grouped under Mental Processes because combining node objects for a graph network is a mathematical operation that can be done by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I
Applicant submits that the claims recite a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Reviewing the claims as a whole, the additional elements amount to extra-solution activities, i.e., receive a first and second information item and outputting the combined graph network. See MPEP 2106.05(g). And applying the abstract ideas via a computer environment, using a computer-readable memory that store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, as mere tools to perform the abstract idea and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims nor the specification proffers any improvement to a computer or any other technology.
The provided paragraph [0018] at most disclose improving a graph (mathematical concept) and/or property value (commerce).
The paragraph [0018] states that these “limitations on the information contained in the generated embeddings may [or may not] affect the ability of a machine learning model accepting the embedding as input to generate correct or useful outputs.” [0018].
Paragraph [0019] disclose that embeddings “may then be generated from the combined graph network, and such embeddings may [or may not] contain information from each sub-graph used to generate the combined graph network.” [0019].
Paragraph [0049] disclose that “embedding generation system 120 may [or may not] use the node data structure associated with a node to generate the embedding. Additionally, the embedding generation system 120 may [or may not] use information from some or all of the edges connected to the node and the edge data structures associated with such edges … the nodes of the combined graph network as embeddings using node2vec maps the nodes to a low-dimensional space of features that maximizes the likelihood of preserving network neighborhoods of nodes, while providing an input vector suitable for use in various machine learning models.” [0049].
Paragraph [0053] discloses a mathematical advantage gained in that “setting an edge weight value to zero may remove extraneous or unnecessary connections between nodes from being used in the generation of an embedding for the attached nodes, thereby improving the usefulness of the generated embedding for each node.” [0053].
None of the proffered paragraphs provides technical support/technical description that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, or that it improves another technology/technical field. Improving the ability of a computing system to efficiently combine, process, and analyze property information represented in a graph network, amounts to an improvement to abstract ideas formulated in mathematical embeddings.
Applicant submits that the amended claim 1 is directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim has not been amended and therefore the 101 analysis above still applies. It is well understood that simply applying abstract ideas by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, or an inventive concept that would amount to significantly more. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”).
Based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights